On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Covener wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> IMO The 403 is returned in a path where errors imply a high likelyhood
>> of someone actively trying to fool the server -- I don't think a 403
>> is too inappropriate here.
>>
> First, no,
Eric Covener wrote:
[...]
IMO The 403 is returned in a path where errors imply a high likelyhood
of someone actively trying to fool the server -- I don't think a 403
is too inappropriate here.
First, no, there was no tomfoolery implicated in copying the file. Just
take an existing Apache logo
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that respect, yes you should. The client should not have to know on
> which platform the server is running, and send a fundamentally different URL
> depending.
You don't have to know the platform. You have to know the
Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:00 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any case, thanks for bringing this problem up. I have been using
Apache for a very long time, and I am also not an native English-speaker. I
can't imagine that I have not encountered the same issue
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:00 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In any case, thanks for bringing this problem up. I have been using
>> Apache for a very long time, and I am also not an native English-speaker. I
>> can't imagine that I have not encountered the same issue before, so I c
Thanks you for trying to revive this case in Apache bugzilla.
2008/9/25 André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi.
>
> I searched the Apache bugzilla database and came up with a similar issue
> posted a while ago (bug # 18805). I posted an additional comment there,
> describing the issue as we see
Hi.
I searched the Apache bugzilla database and came up with a similar issue
posted a while ago (bug # 18805). I posted an additional comment there,
describing the issue as we see it, in the hope that it will revive the case.
I will also try to start another thread here dedicated to such URL
#V[Á]lentín wrote:
I still think that there is an Apache 2.x + Windows related problem...
I definitely agree.
The browser should not have to "guess" the character encoding that the
server uses in its filesystem.
And 403 is the wrong response, even if the filename encoding does not match.
b
I still think that there is an Apache 2.x + Windows related problem...
because, as I said before, with Apache 1.3 + Windows I had no problems:
With Apache 1.3, if I try to get a file called /í.JPG I could do it asking
> for /%ED.JPG to the server, and this works perfectly.
>
and *the file is exac
André Warnier wrote:
>
> I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to
> access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response.
All filenames on unix are whatever arbitrary characters happen to relate
to those names. So for files named in utf-8, they must be %escap
Not a good idea in my case, because they are dynamic content that could have
characters like á, é, ì... I did not apply restrictions to this because in
Linux it works fine, and the important think is that the application works
in Linux (Windows is only the system I use to work... not the final-serv
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So... maybe there is no solution?
If it's only a few URLs, you might be able to use mod_rewrite to map
from the singlebyte to the utf-8.
--
Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
So... maybe there is no solution? :( Fuck. Well... one more reason to
migrate to Linux definitely :S .
2008/9/24 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to
> access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response.
>
> GET http://zaphod/valent%EDn.jpg --> 403 Forbidden
On modern windows, I don't think
Me too.
So at least there is nothing special to your system.
I finished installing Apache 2.2.9 on my Windows XP SP2 (German) laptop.
I created a file called "valentín.jpg" in my document root and tried to
access it with Firefox, and I get a 403 forbidden response.
I also get the same behavio
I have just installed an Apache 2.2.9 and it has exactly the same
behavior...
2008/9/24 #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Accept-Charset", "Accept-Language", and "Content-Type" are the same in all
> cases. Moreover, I think that is no related to the encoding supported by the
> server, is about t
"Accept-Charset", "Accept-Language", and "Content-Type" are the same in all
cases. Moreover, I think that is no related to the encoding supported by the
server, is about the encoding, languages and type of files supported -or
preferred- by the browser.
An example:
Host: localhost
User-Agent: Mozi
If you can, try using Firefox, with the "LiveHttpHeaders" add-on.
That is an add-on that will - if you ask it - capture the outgoing HTTP
request and all its headers, and the incoming response with all its headers.
In this case, I am curious about headers like "Accept-Charset",
"Accept-Language"
So I got it ;-)
I have nothing called mod_security in my httpd.conf, and I don't find
anything related to filesystem encoding or something like that... :S
2008/9/23 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Err... I really don'
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err... I really don't understand the sentence "Nothing like mod_security in
> the picture?"... but, well, I have nothing called mod_security in my
> httpd.conf, so I suppose that the answer is no.
Sorry, I meant "in the pict
Err... I really don't understand the sentence "Nothing like mod_security *in
the picture*?"... but, well, I have nothing called mod_security in my
httpd.conf, so I suppose that the answer is no.
2008/9/23 Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 AM, #V[Á]lentín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, you haven't added confusion. I understand you and I agree with you.
>
> I have checked the Apache error log and it shows nothing. And the Apache
> access log shows this:
>
> 127.0.0.1 - - [23/Sep/2008:15:35:30 +0200] "GET
No, you haven't added confusion. I understand you and I agree with you.
I have checked the Apache error log and it shows nothing. And the Apache
access log shows this:
127.0.0.1 - - [23/Sep/2008:15:35:30 +0200] "GET /%ED.JPG HTTP/1.1" 403 291
I think that this is a problem of misconfiguration, b
#V[Á]lentín wrote:
Hola Válentin.
I can't tell you what the solution is, but from the example you provide,
it looks as if Apache is accepting URLs encoded as UTF-8 (Unicode), but
not URLs encoded as iso-8859-1 (latin-1).
This is not supposed to be the standard, so there must be some setting
so
Hi! This is my first time posting in a mailing list -and I hope not to do
something wrong... If I do something wrong, please tell me-.
I have just upgraded my Apache 1.3 to Apache 2.0 (In Windows XP) and I have
found an estrange problem.
With Apache 1.3, if I try to get a file called /í.JPG I cou
25 matches
Mail list logo